On an rc airplane with the big wings in the back should I put the ailerones

Discussion in 'RC Aircraft & Watercraft' started by Trevor M, May 22, 2008.

  1. Trevor M

    Trevor M New Member

    in the front or the back.? I am making an rc airplane and I was wondering if I should put the ailerons on the little front wings or the big back wings. The airplane is sort of like an euro fighter.
  2. ayesha

    ayesha New Member

    Instal the ailerons on the trailing edge of the big wings at the back. The little front wings (Canards) may be co-ordinated with the ailerons, but its a complicated procedure. The canards would help with the stability in your case.
  3. s l

    s l New Member

    Da back wings.
  4. GeoB

    GeoB New Member

    Hey! So you are building a canard? Sounds like fun! I would think that you would want the ailerons in back, and the

    elevators in front. This would take advantage of the

    opportunity to have a larger control surface in back, and to have it on the strongest support structure. The lever-arm (the distance to the longitudinal axis) of the longer wing is greater, thus you would have greater roll leverage with about the same drag. The pitch, from the elevators, would be best handled from the front.

    Existing planes that use the canard style wings sometimes share the burden of supporting the plane between both wings. A 'normal' aircarft doesn't use the horizontal stabilizers to actually support the plane. Most general aviation wing designs have a pitching moment (a tendency to pitch forward with higher speeds) which the horizontal stabilizers must overcome via the action of the elevators.

    The canard, with some of the weight of the aircraft supported by the front wings, is generally given an angle of attack (or angle of incidence?) greater in front than the rear wings so the front will stall first, automatically pitching the nose down, to gain airspeed and control. Safer!

    Not all canards use the front wings for support, but only for control surfaces. Look at the XB-70, the Pterodactyl Ascender and I think the Velocity. Vari-easy. Think the Wright Brother's plane did too. Lots of others.

    Check out the Quickie, the Quickie II, even the Flying Flea (an old French design with a number of unique features) for examples of planes that divide the support between both sets of wings. In some pictures you can actually see the difference in attack angle.

    I think it is interesting that we (USA) has built fighters with front winglets for added control. They still have control surfaces on the rear wing, plus the winglet itself swivels and functions as a control surface. They are up front but are kinda small to call them actual wings. They enable the plane to use front and back surfaces at the same time, and jig straight up without pitching up. Also down, to the side, etc. Plus they can slam the brakes on unlike most other fighters.

  5. steamhead

    steamhead Active Member

    Hi....How big is this airplane you're building..? Small airplanes tend to be "squirrely" by virtue of their size. If you're talking something with less than 400 sq. in. (+/-) of wing area, you'd be better off using an "elevon" combination. That's combining the elevator and aileron functions into one control surface. Each elevon would be controlled by its own servo, and their controlling channels would be electronically mixed to give you both functions. Higher end R/C systems have the ability to mix channels right from the transmitter. Also, the position of the motor will make a great difference in whether the aircraft will tend to be either nose, or tail heavy....Whatever you do....DON'T attempt to fly a tail heavy airplane...particularly this configuration.....You could wind up with a pile of rubble in very short order.

    Good luck..!!

Share This Page